Log in

View Full Version : Foresight in the bible


shinsukato
June 17th, 2009, 09:15 PM
http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/scientific-accuracies-bible

this may have come up before.

interesting, I think.

shinsukato
June 17th, 2009, 10:02 PM
In the same vein:

http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

fomenter
June 17th, 2009, 10:15 PM
interesting links.
i am not sure what they prove exactly?
that the people around at the time the bible was written were capable of making observations of the world around them?

how wold you you use these arguments as a christian and to prove what?

shinsukato
June 17th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Oh, they prove nothing, but can you see how they could be used in a debate?

Atheist: Christianity is the product of savage goat herders!

Christian: Exactly! But look at how the bible is full of scientific knowledge they couldn't possibly have known. Clearly it is divinely inspired.

I figure it would go something like that, and it seemd interseting.

fomenter
June 17th, 2009, 11:22 PM
i was imagining the point would be "see we observed this thing accurately so the things we say were done by big sky daddy are accurate observations too"...:icon_lol:

it is interesting..

Tsar Phalanxia
June 18th, 2009, 08:57 AM
Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Although I did wtf at "The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas "

Nosferatu
June 21st, 2009, 04:50 AM
interesting links.
i am not sure what they prove exactly?
that the people around at the time the bible was written were capable of making observations of the world around them?

how wold you you use these arguments as a christian and to prove what?

R u that retarded?

fomenter
June 21st, 2009, 05:04 AM
sorry i cant take the opinion of anyone who would write "R u" to mean "are you" as being of any value..
please don't bother to respond to my posts, i don't care what you think i never will care what you think..

thank you for leaving your absence will be the greatest contribution you could possibly make to the church, your offer to leave is truly appreciated thank you again.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 21st, 2009, 11:56 AM
sorry i cant take the opinion of anyone who would write "R u" to mean "are you" as being of any value..
please don't bother to respond to my posts, i don't care what you think i never will care what you think..

thank you for leaving your absence will be the greatest contribution you could possibly make to the church, your offer to leave is truly appreciated thank you again.

*Lone, slow clapping, followed by a standing ovation.*

Will.
June 21st, 2009, 02:12 PM
bibles a crock.

- SEE Jesus


- Back in the day the name Jesus was as common as the name David is now. so my view is the story of Jesus are not the story of one men, but the story of many paupers to kings sharing a likeness, a name, and sharing the same every day bullshit everyone goes through. Then the bible had to open up that "Christ" Jesus or King Jesus walked across water and all of a sudden was a magician. Now if you use the bible as a moral Construct instead of rules of life it makes a hella alot more sense. Which brings us to my theory of God (Guidelines of Decisions) which could be just working a literal tag into a storybook. Now the ideal of an omnipotent being that smites those who don't follow the rules are just another construct. Designed to have people not mess around at work, or at school to take life seriously because in those days, every day jobs Posed MAJOR LIFE THREAT, hell striking up a conversation with someone in the street of higher class could get you killed.

So living blindly by the bible, is a form of COMMUNISM hidden by frazzle dazzle and worship on sundays.

rmw
June 21st, 2009, 02:47 PM
bibles a crock.

Thank you, Will. for your insightful commentary. :icon_rolleyes:

Will.
June 21st, 2009, 02:54 PM
Thank you, Will. for your insightful commentary. :icon_rolleyes:

and you are the cook.

Will.
June 21st, 2009, 05:42 PM
and you are the cook.



- Back in the day the name Jesus was as common as the name David is now. so my view is the story of Jesus are not the story of one men, but the story of many paupers to kings sharing a likeness, a name, and sharing the same every day bullshit everyone goes through. Then the bible had to open up that "Christ" Jesus or King Jesus walked across water and all of a sudden was a magician. Now if you use the bible as a moral Construct instead of rules of life it makes a hella alot more sense. Which brings us to my theory of God (Guidelines of Decisions) which could be just working a literal tag into a storybook. Now the ideal of an omnipotent being that smites those who don't follow the rules are just another construct. Designed to have people not mess around at work, or at school to take life seriously because in those days, every day jobs Posed MAJOR LIFE THREAT, hell striking up a conversation with someone in the street of higher class could get you killed.

So living blindly by the bible, is a form of COMMUNISM hidden by frazzle dazzle and worship on sundays.

rmw
June 21st, 2009, 06:28 PM
- Back in the day the name Jesus was as common as the name David is now. so my view is the story of Jesus are not the story of one men, but the story of many paupers to kings sharing a likeness, a name, and sharing the same every day bullshit everyone goes through. Then the bible had to open up that "Christ" Jesus or King Jesus walked across water and all of a sudden was a magician. Now if you use the bible as a moral Construct instead of rules of life it makes a hella alot more sense. Which brings us to my theory of God (Guidelines of Decisions) which could be just working a literal tag into a storybook. Now the ideal of an omnipotent being that smites those who don't follow the rules are just another construct. Designed to have people not mess around at work, or at school to take life seriously because in those days, every day jobs Posed MAJOR LIFE THREAT, hell striking up a conversation with someone in the street of higher class could get you killed.

So living blindly by the bible, is a form of COMMUNISM hidden by frazzle dazzle and worship on sundays.

I can agree with that. It's one thing to use the bible as a moral construct, as you pointed out; quite another to to take it literally. And honestly, even those bible literalists of today only take some parts of it literally, because there are a lot of passages that would get you imprisoned if you followed their literal meaning (for example, I doubt James Dobson preaches killing your child if he/she talks back to you).

I don't follow where biblical literalism is a a form of communism. Could you clarify? :icon_confused:

tagnostic
June 21st, 2009, 07:35 PM
actually the New Testament is communist in doctrine
most specifically in Acts, all Christians were to pool
their resources and share as needed, the penalty
apparently was death Annanias (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/82044/1/Annanias-and-Saphira-only-record-of-Christian-executions)

Will.
June 21st, 2009, 08:01 PM
One singular power holds the key of "good" if you don't follow this key you will go to a place where there is torture and suffering. You have to act a certain way, get along with your fellow man, and give me money.

What is not communist about that? :icon_lol:

rmw
June 21st, 2009, 08:17 PM
One singular power holds the key of "good" if you don't follow this key you will go to a place where there is torture and suffering. You have to act a certain way, get along with your fellow man, and give me money.

What is not communist about that? :icon_lol:

Ah...and god = Big Brother. That makes sense now.

Will.
June 21st, 2009, 08:50 PM
Which leads me to believe that Religion is a Construct set out by certain social classes for easy manipulation of the lessers to condone their own flaunting lifestyles for as long as possible without question.

shinsukato
June 23rd, 2009, 09:04 AM
actually the New Testament is communist in doctrine
most specifically in Acts, all Christians were to pool
their resources and share as needed, the penalty
apparently was death Annanias (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/82044/1/Annanias-and-Saphira-only-record-of-Christian-executions)

Very cool, I hadn't known that. Thanks.

Nosferatu
June 23rd, 2009, 11:37 PM
*Lone, slow clapping, followed by a standing ovation.*

Short slow moan followed by a large fart...

Nosferatu
June 23rd, 2009, 11:38 PM
Which leads me to believe that Religion is a Construct set out by certain social classes for easy manipulation of the lessers to condone their own flaunting lifestyles for as long as possible without question.
U idiot...! Jesus was a carpenter...what class?

Lenin Cat
June 24th, 2009, 02:17 PM
jesus never existed, religion was created by the upper class to keep the lower class down.

Nosferatu
June 24th, 2009, 03:23 PM
jesus never existed, religion was created by the upper class to keep the lower class down.

That sounds even more retarded...Jesus parents were poor...

tagnostic
June 24th, 2009, 05:00 PM
religion was invented by the lower class
to raise them to upper class
you have to be born noble
but any con artist can
become a priest

Will.
June 25th, 2009, 02:41 AM
Thats only a few.

Nosferatu
June 26th, 2009, 11:09 PM
- Back in the day the name Jesus was as common as the name David is now. so my view is the story of Jesus are not the story of one men, but the story of many paupers to kings sharing a likeness, a name, and sharing the same every day bullshit everyone goes through. Then the bible had to open up that "Christ" Jesus or King Jesus walked across water and all of a sudden was a magician. Now if you use the bible as a moral Construct instead of rules of life it makes a hella alot more sense. Which brings us to my theory of God (Guidelines of Decisions) which could be just working a literal tag into a storybook. Now the ideal of an omnipotent being that smites those who don't follow the rules are just another construct. Designed to have people not mess around at work, or at school to take life seriously because in those days, every day jobs Posed MAJOR LIFE THREAT, hell striking up a conversation with someone in the street of higher class could get you killed.

So living blindly by the bible, is a form of COMMUNISM hidden by frazzle dazzle and worship on sundays.

The name Will is quite common as well; but then I only know of one asshole named will and that is U!

Nosferatu
June 26th, 2009, 11:13 PM
religion was invented by the lower class
to raise them to upper class
you have to be born noble
but any con artist can
become a priest

Anyone can become a Jim Baker or a whorehopping Jimmy Swaggart. But a true man of faith can never be unfaithful.

Will.
June 27th, 2009, 02:36 AM
The name Will is quite common as well; but then I only know of one asshole named will and that is U!

Historically assholes are people referred to outside the social norm, who else were in such category? Oh yeah, social revolutionists. :icon_lol:

Nosferatu
June 28th, 2009, 04:28 AM
Historically assholes are people referred to outside the social norm, who else were in such category? Oh yeah, social revolutionists. :icon_lol:

And what is wrong with social revolution?

Will.
June 28th, 2009, 06:04 PM
And what is wrong with social revolution?

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong , therefore disproving the theory of Majority rule, that if everyone agrees its right if not its not.
Sometimes you have to go against the grain.

DrM
June 28th, 2009, 07:57 PM
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong , therefore disproving the theory of Majority rule, that if everyone agrees its right if not its not.
Sometimes you have to go against the grain.

Truth.
And i think the communist idea is actually really interesting. and lulzy.

Anyway, The time the bible was written was really a period of enlightenment for jerusalem.
Had the Romans not burned the city twice shortly after in the Romana-judeo wars, Jerusalem would have continued to be enlightened.
In fact, many argue that half the evidence supporting jesus' existence were destroyed in the fire... (most of the other half was destroyed in alexandria) (then the rest burned in the council of nicea)
Which is why its almost impossible to prove jesus' existence to this day. (when looking at sources that are not found in the bible, there aren't any that were written in his lifetime or for forty years after. If you try and look for sources that were pagan or jewish, that 40 years turns into around 60...)
I actually wrote a whole report on it.
That doesnt mean he didnt exist... absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Anyway, the point is, the bible was not neccessarily written by dolts with no knowledge, Jerusalem was in a period of enlightenment, and with no known authors, anyone in jerusalem could have written the gospels.

Will.
June 29th, 2009, 05:48 AM
That doesnt mean he didnt exist... absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Anyway, the point is, the bible was not neccessarily written by dolts with no knowledge, Jerusalem was in a period of enlightenment, and with no known authors, anyone in jerusalem could have written the gospels.


Get your facts first, then distort them all you want.

Thats just it, the bible was written by many. Too many, the translations are limitless and the author is as the Epocrapha of Ezekial. Endless.

Nosferatu
June 29th, 2009, 09:23 PM
Truth.
Had the Romans not burned the city twice shortly after in the Romana-judeo wars, Jerusalem would have continued to be enlightened.
In fact, many argue that half the evidence supporting jesus' existence were destroyed in the fire... (most of the other half was destroyed in alexandria) (then the rest burned in the council of nicea)



.

St. Peter wrote his 1st letter epistle 30 years prior to St. John who wrote Revelation on the isle of Patmos. The last in the last chapter of John [and i have said this before\] Jesus predicted and promised that John would be spared. All the other apostles passed through martyrdom, but John lived, as predicted. Why did Joh survive? Jesus provided a comforter for the suffering church that you say was flourishing. The only reason it survived is because of the comfort afforded by Revelation. It was deemed necessary then and it is now relevant.

shinsukato
July 6th, 2009, 08:22 PM
A lot more was known back then than people realise. Any scientific knowledge in the Bible are just things that were already known by then. It's also why you have bats referred to as birds there, since that was the extent of scientific knowledge of bats at the time.

Classifications of animals are basically arbitrary, so they can't be said to have been 'wrong' for calling bats birds. You need only change the arbitrary definition of 'mammal' and 'bird' to make that happen.

Do you think that the ancient hebrews, animal herders and savages really, knew the Earth was round, or many of the other things mentioned?

Tsar Phalanxia
July 7th, 2009, 08:50 AM
Classifications of animals are basically arbitrary, so they can't be said to have been 'wrong' for calling bats birds. You need only change the arbitrary definition of 'mammal' and 'bird' to make that happen.
Umm. Really?
Do you think that the ancient hebrews, animal herders and savages really, knew the Earth was round, or many of the other things mentioned?
Actually, the Ancient Greeks knew the world was round for years. This can be observed by watching a ship sail over the horizon, and the fact that only a spherical Earth could produce lunar eclipses.

tagnostic
July 7th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Classifications of animals are basically arbitrary, so they can't be said to have been 'wrong' for calling bats birds. You need only change the arbitrary definition of 'mammal' and 'bird' to make that happen.

Do you think that the ancient hebrews, animal herders and savages really, knew the Earth was round, or many of the other things mentioned?


classifications are agreed upon definitions in order to reduce verbiage when referring to a specific object ie: animals has a subset of avians, which has subsets of species etcetera
which is much simpler than saying a warm blooded, oxygen breathing, feathered, beaked, winged creature,
changing/misusing these common definitions adds confusion and reduces actual communication which is the exact opposite of why we use language, without common agreed upon definitions its all garble and gobblydygook, slang is what happens when someone decides to misuse a word or phrase, if enough people begin to use it then eventually it takes on a new meaning and language evolves but until eveyone agrees upon and understands the new definition it causes miscommunication,
therefore all communication must be taken in a societal context, trying to have a conversation with a 9th century englishman would be problematic at best, as we would not share the same definitions/usage of words and language, even though we both speak what is commonly referred to as English, the problem is compounded when translating to and from different languages with completely different societal contexts when as in the case of the bible it has been translated multiple times in different cultures, era's and languages with gaps in between it becomes rather difficult if not impossible to understand the original writers intent, with the written word it is even more difficult because it lacks the inflection, nuance and physical contexts (facial expressions and gestures) that would help understanding. We'll probably never know exactly what the original writers meaning actually was, whether it was all or part parables, actual history, political propaganda or even fictional entertainment.

Tsar Phalanxia
July 7th, 2009, 05:23 PM
9th Century? That would be nigh-impossble, since you didn't have the French influences that the Normans brought over, hence, Old English.
E.G.
1] Fęder ure žu že eart on heofonum,
[2] Si žin nama gehalgod.
[3] To becume žin rice,
[4] gewurže šin willa, on eoršan swa swa on heofonum.
[5] Urne gedęghwamlican hlaf syle us todęg
[6] and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfaš urum gyltendum.
[7] And ne gelęd žu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele.
Sožlice.
You might be able to get that, if you say it out aloud. Just.
Here's some Middle English, from about 1200.
And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende že rewme of god, & twelue wiž hym & summe wymmen žat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie žat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone že wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye ožere žat mynystreden to hym of her facultes
Easier, but still bloody difficult.
By 1600, it had developed into early modern, and the language we know and love today as Shakespeare's.

Where's Yiuel when you need him?

tagnostic
July 7th, 2009, 05:27 PM
hehehehe
my point
exactly

and I will concede a love of the Bard
but my favorite is still
Chaucer

(if not limited to english 'the Decameron' Boccacio is hilarious)

shinsukato
July 7th, 2009, 08:01 PM
No, taxonomy is determined by heritage, not "arbitrary definition".

Just to double check, does that mean in order to be classified as a mammal an animal needs to do more than just exhibit the common traits of one (fur, lactation etc.), it must also have a traceable lineage back to a common ancestor with other mammals? I'm sure I can go look this up somewhere, but a quick reply from you would be helpful as well.

If I do in fact understand you correctly, I still don't see how we can say a biblical view of bats as 'birds' is inherently wrong. I just don't see how a system of classification can be 'correct' or not. It all changes depending on your requirements. We may define animals based on their evolutionary lineage, but we might just as easily have defined purely on physical characteristics (as i believe original linneaean taxonomy did). When you consider it from a 'divine' perspective, no system of definition would outrank another. (playing devils advocate, by the way)

In hindsight it seems silly to argue over this one tiny piece of scripture, but I really think if we're going to question the bible we shouldn't do so by setting up a straw man (as is so frequently done to us)

shinsukato
July 7th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Actually, the Ancient Greeks knew the world was round for years. This can be observed by watching a ship sail over the horizon, and the fact that only a spherical Earth could produce lunar eclipses.

It's understandable that the well educated class of the ancient greeks could make such logical inferences.

However it's my understanding that the ancient Jews were, as Christopher Hitchens once put it, murderous animal-herding savages. Could they have possibly had this kind of knowledge?

Of course, my assumption here is that either
1) this passage was added/changed later or
2) it's one of possibly many instances of sheer blind luck in the bible. They were trying to be poetic and ended up right.

Tsar Phalanxia
July 7th, 2009, 10:15 PM
It's understandable that the well educated class of the ancient greeks could make such logical inferences.

However it's my understanding that the ancient Jews were, as Christopher Hitchens once put it, murderous animal-herding savages. Could they have possibly had this kind of knowledge?

Of course, my assumption here is that either
1) this passage was added/changed later or
2) it's one of possibly many instances of sheer blind luck in the bible. They were trying to be poetic and ended up right.

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Perna de Pau
July 10th, 2009, 01:57 PM
There is one single reference in the bible that could be used to pretend that its authors knew that the earth was spherical but there are more than twenty that clearly state that the earth was flat:

http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#flat%20earth

So much for the scientific accuracy of the bible.:)

tatty000
July 12th, 2009, 01:57 PM
There is one single reference in the bible that could be used to pretend that its authors knew that the earth was spherical but there are more than twenty that clearly state that the earth was flat:

http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#flat%20earth

So much for the scientific accuracy of the bible.:)

Well there are a couple to tackle.

1. It's not necessarily God speaking these things, they are humans. So how can we take the world of a man with little knowledge as relevance of God's direct word about the spherical shape of the earth? It is not really God speaking to them about how the earth is shaped, it's their view point.

2. Descriptive language. Not all of it is trying to confirm how the earth is flat. Sometimes it is just used to try and describe their viewpoint of a subject. For eg, the clouds covered the 4 corners of the earth. This isn't saying that the earth has 4 corners, rather it is saying that as much of the earth that can be seen by me, it is covered by clouds.

3. Humans are idiots. If God didn't inform them, and they aren't the smartest people in the world, then they probably didn't know the earth was spherical.

Now if you use the bible as a moral Construct instead of rules of life it makes a hella alot more sense.
I completely disagree. The Bible makes no sense at all as a moral guideline unless you can accept the existence of God.

It becomes a largely confusing book with contradictions and will create so much unsureness inside of you if you treat it as a moral guideline. However, if you accept existence of God, then the Bible can all fall together. This is because the acceptance of God is a large part of the Bible, which gives us answers as to how Gods character is and what changed between the Old Testament and the NT.

I explained it poorly, but if you need me to clarify then I will later on.

Which leads me to believe that Religion is a Construct set out by certain social classes for easy manipulation of the lessers to condone their own flaunting lifestyles for as long as possible without question.
For one, most pastors and leaders in the church are non university graduates, and do not have a great education, and are generally not that smart.

Secondly, the amount of people attending churches and involved in the church have a higher percentage of post graduates than non christians. I'll have to double check this statistic if you need me to though.

What I'm trying to get at, is that a social class argument isn't really applicable. The Church is basically just as mixed in culture, people, smarts, social class etc as everyone else in this world.

rmw
July 12th, 2009, 03:53 PM
tatty, I don't agree that the moral constructs of the Bible fall into place only with a belief in God. If anything, given the fact that, many times throughout, I find the OT God to be vain, capricious, egotistical and prone to smiting people who irritate him or don't stroke his ego--the moral constructs put forth from this God seem to be confusing at best, and hypocritical at worst ("do as I say, not as I do"). IMO, the OT makes more sense not as a set of moral constructs, per se, but, rather, God and his various commandments and punishments were a way to ensure the ancient Hebrews got along with others in their tribe(s)--since there were no formal laws codified at the time to ensure such, God was there to do the job.

In short, it wasn't "love thy neighbor" because it wasn't necessarily the right thing to do, it was "love thy neighbor" because it was the practical thing to do.

Perna de Pau
July 13th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Well there are a couple to tackle.

1. It's not necessarily God speaking these things, they are humans. So how can we take the world of a man with little knowledge as relevance of God's direct word about the spherical shape of the earth? It is not really God speaking to them about how the earth is shaped, it's their view point.

2. Descriptive language. Not all of it is trying to confirm how the earth is flat. Sometimes it is just used to try and describe their viewpoint of a subject. For eg, the clouds covered the 4 corners of the earth. This isn't saying that the earth has 4 corners, rather it is saying that as much of the earth that can be seen by me, it is covered by clouds.

3. Humans are idiots. If God didn't inform them, and they aren't the smartest people in the world, then they probably didn't know the earth was spherical.


I completely disagree. The Bible makes no sense at all as a moral guideline unless you can accept the existence of God.

It becomes a largely confusing book with contradictions and will create so much unsureness inside of you if you treat it as a moral guideline. However, if you accept existence of God, then the Bible can all fall together. This is because the acceptance of God is a large part of the Bible, which gives us answers as to how Gods character is and what changed between the Old Testament and the NT.

I explained it poorly, but if you need me to clarify then I will later on.


For one, most pastors and leaders in the church are non university graduates, and do not have a great education, and are generally not that smart.

Secondly, the amount of people attending churches and involved in the church have a higher percentage of post graduates than non christians. I'll have to double check this statistic if you need me to though.

What I'm trying to get at, is that a social class argument isn't really applicable. The Church is basically just as mixed in culture, people, smarts, social class etc as everyone else in this world.

You do not adress my point, which was about the bible's scientific accuracy, not god's.

I agree with rmw that the bible does not make sense either with or without god.

And I agree with Will that religion was "set out by certain social classes for easy manipulation of the lessers". This does not mean that it is still the case. However I doubt that today the church is still just as mixed as society. The wealthy and intellectually more developed countries (with the notable exception of the USA) are also the more secular. Please check your statistics.

Will.
July 13th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Well there are a couple to tackle.

1. It's not necessarily God speaking these things, they are humans. So how can we take the world of a man with little knowledge as relevance of God's direct word about the spherical shape of the earth? It is not really God speaking to them about how the earth is shaped, it's their view point.

2. Descriptive language. Not all of it is trying to confirm how the earth is flat. Sometimes it is just used to try and describe their viewpoint of a subject. For eg, the clouds covered the 4 corners of the earth. This isn't saying that the earth has 4 corners, rather it is saying that as much of the earth that can be seen by me, it is covered by clouds.

3. Humans are idiots. If God didn't inform them, and they aren't the smartest people in the world, then they probably didn't know the earth was spherical.


I completely disagree. The Bible makes no sense at all as a moral guideline unless you can accept the existence of God.

It becomes a largely confusing book with contradictions and will create so much unsureness inside of you if you treat it as a moral guideline. However, if you accept existence of God, then the Bible can all fall together. This is because the acceptance of God is a large part of the Bible, which gives us answers as to how Gods character is and what changed between the Old Testament and the NT.

I explained it poorly, but if you need me to clarify then I will later on.


For one, most pastors and leaders in the church are non university graduates, and do not have a great education, and are generally not that smart.

Secondly, the amount of people attending churches and involved in the church have a higher percentage of post graduates than non christians. I'll have to double check this statistic if you need me to though.

What I'm trying to get at, is that a social class argument isn't really applicable. The Church is basically just as mixed in culture, people, smarts, social class etc as everyone else in this world.

As a reply to both your replies.


In the past the forefathers of Religion have proven that they are indeed that smart, and have done way worse things "In the name of the Lord". Just saying.
Look at the Crusades, a search of profit..... The Profit Muhammed XD... Ok no more jokes. Or the Christening of the Sistine, Friday the 13th,
all these days adhere and in memory hold true to very bad days.
Friday the 13th was the day the Catholic Church under guidance and assistance of King Phillip, had the Knights Templar put to death who at the time were basically the Microsoft of the time, they were the richest men on earth and obtained those riches "In the Name of the Lord"

As for a moral construct its perfect. The 10 commandments apply today almost.... Except that part about coveting thy neighbors ass... Thats just silly.
The story of Jesus basically tells you to be a good person, but don't expect others to be as just for people are people and will cave under temptation.